About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
governments, spending 42% of the gdp. and we want to make any effort to stop that? or are we discussing to say it has never stopped before? >> i think the earlier social security, not fully implemented. there was no medicare. it has been pretty stable since 1980. it goes up and down with the business cycle, but it is pretty stable. this is the division between the right and left. who will continue to fight about bigger government and smaller government. we will not do it by refusing to pay for the government we have, thinking the economy in the process. that would be a good start, as a backdrop. i want to touch on your question about corporate and individual taxes. the third piece is small businesses. we work out how develop a tax code that is good for competitiveness. you need to think about how those play into it. i think one of the things to keep hearing through messages with different groups of people is, while everybody is aware that the solution is going to take sacrifices from all sides, on spending, on revenues -- the confidence you get for putting the deal in place to actually has tre
a divided government. it is up to us to make this divided government work. we have to set aside partisan concerns. how to work together to prepare this economy to get people back on their feet? how do we get this sense of real security and upper mobility for all americans, especially those in need? they are the same. the old ways will not do. we need new thinking and renewed efforts from all americans. it is true that president obama won reelection. i congratulate him on his victory. on january 20, he will face a a fiscal economy and and i mess. you might say he will inherit these problems. [laughter] [applause] he his second term, i hope t will offer fresh ideas. failure will mean for more years of -- four more years we have work to do. -- four more years. we have work to do. serious solutions for serious reforms, we thank him for doing that. [applause] the election did not go our way. the republican party cannot make excuses. we cannot have the next four years on the sidelines. we need to apply our timeless principles to the challenges of the day. our party excels at representing that
secretary of the treasury, alexander hamilton, observe energy is a leading character in good government. the president must lead in a divided government and must not advocate his or her responsibility. president obama has the responsibility to propose a real bipartisan plan to avert the fiscal cliff that can pass both the house and the senate. withdrawing from the recommendations of the simpson- bowles commission, the president could propose a plan that would not only avert the so-called fiscal cliff, but also help us avert the fiscal abyss. if president obama were to offer such a plan, republicans would act favorably. going over the cliff is unnecessary. as it has been observed in "the wall street journal," the president is boxing in the republicans. he is offering them a deal they cannot accept. first, the president has repeatedly called for a balanced solution involving both revenue and less spending. what is obvious to the most casual observer is that this plan is not a balanced. the fiscal cliff involves nearly four dollars of anticipated revenue from higher taxes for every dollar
of government, and the president is proposing to grow it more. to spend more. the problem is isn't tax policy, mr. speaker. the problem is spending. you know, mr. speaker, we hear a lot about fairness. i want to talk a little bit about that now. i'm going to switch to tax policy because that's what everybody seems to be obsessed with in the media. i want to make sure we dispel some of the myths of what's going on there. i went to dictionary.com as i'm apt to do, mr. speaker, and printed out what fair is. they said free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. the first definition. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. and two, legitimately thought, pursued, done, or given proper under the rules. fair. but i think we all support fairness. i'm certain that we do, but i'm absolute certain what president obama believes is fair is different from what the people i represent believe is fair. and what i brought here, mr. speaker, is a chart from the joint committee on taxation, that's the group here on capitol hill that is in charge of measuring all the tax policy, it's a nonpartisan group, they just
options will get the revenue for the government. >> in terms of getting rid of deductions or expanding the base, there's basically three approaches to we can take. one is the overall cap. capping the total amount of deductions or capping the tax value of deductions like maya and marty feld stein have put forth and the advantage to that is politically you're not actually attacking anyone -- any one specific subsidy, you're just saying we're putting a cap on the overall system. a second way is what john podesta mentioned, we are going to change specific items but wohl change them all in the same way. you're not special, we're not picking on you, so we're going to change all deductions to 18% or something like that. the third way which is probably the perfect way from the economic approach is to deal with each of these on an individual bay sess. tax expenditures generally cover an enormous range of activities whether it's ex-cluges or deductions or credits or lower rates, etc. we call them all tax expenditures but it shouldn't hide the underlying heterogeneity. so a package that went afte
in definitions and supply chains. n.g.o.'s should guidance from scholars. governments need to allocate more resources and eret enforcements that are designed to dismantling servitude while helping the survivors. if we're doing a poor job of understanding and tackling slavery we're doing a pathetic job in empowerering those of the exploitation. international stakeholders have to under take similar efforts but with their focus on transnational transportation. every day citizens have to organize in more effective social movements. also shift the products that one day will be cleansed and certified as being untainlted. charitable foundations have to continue providing resources for research as well as service for resources between governments and academia. so final word, servitude will continue to be in the future, whether some, all, or none of these can be called i slavery or will be called slavery must be tackled. must has changed with slavery but aznar a tives much is till the same. at one level the lines between forced labor, debt bondage are vital to understand if we're going to properly t
government citizens and academia. a final word, echoes of past and said the food well go into the future were the sum, all, or none of these can be called slavery, it is an issue that must be tackled with intellectual sensationalism. much has changed, but it is and there are to of where much as so the same. the alliance be to enforce labor and bondage is vital to understand its efforts have of is the issues. no matter what, and susceptible mugs that should no longer be a part of the human condition. and there is space for new leadership to spearhead the efforts. i hope one of the or many of the wall fell of the space. it is wide open for new leaders. take the mantles. it is my hope somebody will be inspired this weekend to say you're sorry will be the one to organize all of us and lead us into an area of her predicating slavery. thank you. [applause] >> please make sure e wait for the microphone. the >> anybody standing, there are since down here. i wanted to say i had a 7/it could have been a huge and was a church without slides. this is what we experienced. let's go to the audience. >> i wo
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7